Please take a moment of your time to reach out to State Senators in Alaska, urge them to support recently introduced legislation which would prohibit wolf hunting and trapping in two areas adjacent to Denali National Park and Preserve. House Bill 105 passed the House recently and will now be considered by the 20 members of the State Senate. Should the measure pass the Senate it will then go to the Governor for his signature.

Please copy and paste (feel free to personalize*) the following letter:

Dear Senator,

The Alaska House of Representatives recently passed legislation to prohibit wolf hunting and trapping in two areas adjacent to Denali National Park and Preserve. House Bill 105, sponsored by Congressman Josephson, which seeks to ensure healthy wolf population for park visitors to enjoy, is worthy of your support.

Denali is recognized as one of the best places in the world for people to see wolves in the wild. Each year, tens of thousands of visitors see wolves along Denali Park Road. More than anywhere else in Alaska, wolves in the eastern part of Denali provide significant benefits to tourism.

The harvest of wolves, particularly breeding animals, has the potential to decrease wolf numbers, influence social structure and reproduction, alter wolf behavior, and decrease opportunities for wolf viewing. Thus, even if harvest occurring outside of the park has little effect on large-scale wolf population dynamics, it may still have significant effects on visitor experience.

The Denali National Park and Preserve is a major tourist destination that hosts more than half a million visitors yearly, which, in turn, provides a significant boost to the local and statewide economies. Previous buffer zones have protected wildlife populations adjacent to the park from hunting and trapping. After eliminating the buffer zone in 2010 visitor wolf sightings dropped from 45 percent to just 6 percent in under 4 years.

“

Denali National Park and Preserve is an important tourism asset, and a big part of the attraction of the park is, of course, the ability to see wildlife in their natural habitat,” said Congressman Josephson. “This bill will help make sure that future generations of Alaskans and visitors can be moved, as I have been, by seeing these amazing animals in this unforgettable place “

The continued and heartless slaughter of Denali wolves has disrupted their society and destabilized the packs, which in turn compromised not only the hunting capabilities, but the very survival of remaining members. Hunting and trapping most often removes key pack members or alpha wolves, which will usually will lead to the disintegration of an entire family group.

For example, in 2012, the trapping of the pregnant alpha female wolf from the Grant Creek group led to the group declining from 15 wolves to only 3 that year. Then in 2016 one of the two remaining East Fork wolves was shot just outside park boundaries. Because of the shooting of the radio-collared gray male (dubbed “1508 GM” by park biologists) the East Fork pack was reduced to one lone black wolf who, at that time, had pups, now presumed dead.

Please

help prevent this type of tragic situation from ever happening again by voting in favor of House Bill 105. Protect Denali National Park Wolves.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this extremely important matter,

Please share this action, the wolves need all the help we can muster as you can see from this response which I just received from Senator Berta Gardner:

Thank you for sending your comments to my office. While I would be inclined to support such a measure I do not believe that the Senate Majority will give the idea much of a chance. Just the other day they sent out a press release saying that they were “dismayed by the environmentalist agenda” being proposed by the House.

I have seen and enjoyed the Denali Park wolf pack, and been saddened by news of deaths.

Berta

Senator Berta Gardner

Anchorage District I

Spenard Midtown UMed

*Note: When personalizing your e-mail, please refrain from discussing the population decline within the park which seems to be rebounding without a buffer as indicated in this chart.

HB 105 Closes Two Areas Near the Park Border to Hunting and Trapping of Wolves

Yesterday, the Alaska House of Representatives approved legislation to prohibit wolf hunting and trapping in two areas adjacent to Denali National Park and Preserve. House Bill 105, sponsored by Representative Andy Josephson (D-Anchorage), seeks to ensure healthy wolf populations so that park visitors can see wolves in the wild.

“Denali National Park managers report that visitors consistently want to see wolves. While the park has long been among the best places on earth to catch a glimpse of a wolf, in recent years wolf sightings have declined dramatically,” said Rep. Josephson. “Creating areas off-limits to hunting and trapping will result in more successful viewing opportunities.”

The Denali National Park and Preserve is a major tourist destination that hosts more than half a million visitors a year. Tourism in the park provides a significant boost to the local and statewide economies.

Previous buffer zones have protected wildlife populations adjacent to the park from hunting and trapping. The Alaska Board of Game created a buffer zone on the park’s eastern boundary in 2000, but eliminated it in 2010. That year, 45 percent of park visitors reported seeing a wolf, but just four years later only six percent reported a wolf sighting.

“Denali National Park and Preserve is an important tourism asset, and a big part of the attraction of the park is the ability to see wildlife in their natural habitat,” said Rep. Josephson. “This bill will help make sure that future generations of Alaskans and visitors can be as moved as I have been by seeing these amazing animals in this unforgettable place.”

House Bill 105 passed the Alaska House of Representatives today by a vote of 22-18. The bill will now be sent to the Alaska State Senate for consideration.

Please take action, contact Alaskan State Senators and urge them to support House Bill 105. More information, and a sample email can be found in this facebook post.

The following report shows the results of Intensive Management with “wolf control” in Upper Koyukuk Management Area within Game Management Unit 24B in Alaska. This predation control program was authorized by the Alaska Board of Game under 5 AAC 92.124 (c)

Never do I use use graphic images in my work, however this information is equally disturbing.

Note: The criteria for “success” with this program is a harvest of 35-40 moose in UKMA. The wolf removal objective is to reduce wolf numbers “as low as possible” in the UKMA near Allakaket and Alatna (combined human population of around 150) to allow more moose to be hunted by humans. The objective seeks to maintain a population of 100-140 wolves in all of GMU 24B “to ensure wolves persist in the area”. Keep in mind that GMU 24B is 13,523 square miles, and area larger than the entire state of Maryland which is just 12,407 square miles. A fixed-wing airplane is usedtospotwolves. Once the wolves are located they are killed by gunners in a helicopter.

“Programs are conducted by selected resident citizen pilot/gunner teams that receive discretionary state permits authorizing same-day-airborne (SDA) landing and shooting and/or aerial shooting from aircraft. To obtain one of these permits, an application must be submitted to the department, and authorized pilots and gunners will be notified if selected. Nonresidents cannot participate in the wolf control program. Please note that this program is wolf control, not wolf hunting.”

Note that black and grizzly bears are likely the primary mortality factor effecting calf survival based on composition data and field studies in adjacent Game Management Units (21D and 24D) but they were not be included in predator control activities as local resident cultural taboos make bear control an untenable option.

Also note that nowhere in the report was there any mention of human induced mortality rates of moose neonates (a study many researchers would like to continue as it facilitates a more in-depth characterization and understanding of human-induced abandonment and some of its complexities). A study such as this was cancelled by Minnesota’s Governor, Mark Dayton, out of concern that human interference is harming the very animals it’s trying to help.

In Minnesota, from 2013 to 2015, approximately one quarter of 75 newborn moose were abandoned by their mothers after researchers attached sophisticated GPS collars to them; in 2015 five out of 32 adult moose died after being collared.

Intensive Management for Moose with Wolf Predation Control in GMU 24B (reportpreparedFebruary 2015).

The culling of wolves in the UKMA:

In year 1, regulatory year (RY*) 2011, no wolves were killed as part of the department control, however 2 wolves were hunted. The population of wolves in the UKMA at this time was estimated at 23-58.

In year 2, RY 2012, it was decided that prior to this year’s wolf control the population was approximately 36-37. From this small population 23 wolves were gunned down, leaving an “abundance” of 13-14 individuals.

In year 3, RY 2013, no wolves were killed; the department estimated the population to be 21-25 wolves.

In year 4, RY 2014, the “pre-control abundance” was estimated at 28 to 29 wolves of which the department gunned down 26, leaving an “abundance” of just 2 or 3 animals.

In year 5, RY 2015, the pre-control guesstimate was at 10 to 15 wolves, of which the department gunned down 10, leaving, again, just 2 or 3 individuals.

In year 6, the pre-control population remained at 2 or 3 wolves, however, by the end of the regulatory year the population was 10 to 15 animals.

The results of this horror story.

59 wolves lost their lives thanks to the intensive predator management program in order to increase human harvest of moose.

The calculated yearly harvest (human) of moose prior to the slaughter of these magnificent animals was 16. The last calculation offered by the department was in year 4 (RY 2014) when just 14 moose were harvested. Even worse was year 3, the first year after the wolf control began, when only 10 moose were harvested. No data was offered for 2015 or 2016….interesting.

The total cost (monetary) of this program was $660,900.00

With the signing into law of H.J.Resolution 69 our National Wildlife Refuges are now subject to this sort of mismanagement in Alaska, as the law strikes down theAlaska National Wildlife Refuges Rule. Should the State win a lawsuit against the National Park Service these practices will also resume in National Parks located in Alaska.

The control program in GMU units 12, 20(B), 20(D), 20(E), 20(A), and 25(C): the Upper Yukon-Tanana Predation Control Area (UYTPCA) was established to increase the Fortymile Caribou Herd throughout its range to aid in achieving intensive management objectives. This is a continuing control program that was first authorized by the Board of Game in 2004 for wolf and brown bear control, though in 2009 bear control was deleted from the program because control methods available at the time were deemed ineffective. The wolf population control objective for the area is 88-103 wolves. 1,423 wolves have been killed in this region between RY 2004 and RY 2015. The use of radio collars is one of the techniques used to locate and kill wolves in the Upper Yukon-Tanana area (the radio-collared wolves are often called “Judas Wolves”; approximately 28 wolves are collared for this purpose).

For more than two decades the National Park Service monitored the wolf packs in the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, however, because so many wolves were killed by Alaska’s Department of Fish and Game the study was abandoned. Each of the preserve’s nine wolf packs lost members; three packs were entirely eliminated while another five packs had been reduced to a single wolf each. The Park Service officially ended the study in 2014.

Clearly, Alaska’s lethal predator control tactics are based on poor science and inadequate predator-prey population surveys, are unethical and prioritize consumptive use of wildlife over non-consumptive use. Increasing ungulate populations beyond carrying capacity degrades habitat and disrupts ecosystems. Furthermore the department has failed to produce scientific evidence that these programs have indeed produced larger herds of ungulates with increased human harvest.

The graph below shows moose harvest for each year during the period starting when the intensive management law passed in 1994 and extending to 2015.

Alaska Moose Harvests 1994-2015 Vic Van Ballenberghe

Compassion, kindness, sympathy and a humane treatment of wildlife are sorely needed as an integral part of Alaska’s wildlife management policies, with ethical standards that call for the protection of all wildlife, including wolves.

The Interim Annual Report on intensive management for Moose in the UKMA can be found here.*Regulatory Year(RY) is July 1st to June 30th.

As you know, Congress passed a measure, under the CRA, authored by Representative Don Young, which would undo the Alaska National Wildlife Refuges Rule. The resolution will now be sent to the White House for the Presidential signature. If the measure of disapproval is enacted and signed by the President, not only does it strike down the Alaska National Wildlife Refuges Rule, but will also prevent USFWS from ever promulgating “substantially the same rule” without explicit authorization from Congress.

Our only hope in stopping this abhorrent piece of legislation is a veto by the President. Note: Congress can override a veto with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate (If this occurs, though more than likely would not, the measure becomes law over the President’s objection).

Following is a small set of tweets to send to President Trump, as well as a simple copy and paste email. This, my friends, is the grand finale, our final hope in stopping animal cruelty from resuming on our National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.

Before I let you get on with it, there is one important matter that needs to be clarified:

Joint resolutions are like bills, in that they require the approval of both Chambers, in identical form, and the President’s signature, to become law (unless used for proposing amendments to the Constitution).

H.J.Resolution 69 passed the House on February 16, 2017. The measure was then sent to the Senate for consideration and passed on March 21, 2017. The Senate was not considering S.J.Resolution 18. The resolution does not change in any form, including it’s title. H.J. Resolution 69 now goes to the President for signing. Please tap above links to see the progress of both resolutions (you will see that S.J.Resolution 18 is still in committee). Sending tweets with a hashtag referring to S.J.Res.18 are incorrect.
Several organizations believed that the Senate version would be brought to the floor for a vote, and alerted their members to call/email their Senators asking them to oppose the Senate resolution. This has created a huge mixup, as the version voted on was from the House. Other organizations, on the other hand, have asked you to address the correct resolution, which is H.J.Res.69. So I ask you, please donottweet“SJRes18”, it is no longer part of the equation.

But, who am I, and why should you believe me. Fair enough:

Let me give you an example. Another measure introduced under the CRA was the Disapproval of the Stream Protection Rule, H.J.Resolution 38. This measure was introduced in the House January 30, 2017 and passed two days later. This disgraceful resolution was then rushed over to the Senate, and passedthe very next day. H.J.Resolution 38 was then presented to the President who signed it into law 2 weeks later (10 days after receiving it). Meanwhile, the Senate version, S.J.Resolution 10, like S.J.Resolution 18, with the same language as its counterpart in the House, remained in Committee and was never brought to the floor. Again, tap above links and see for yourself. That being said, I hope that you please stick to the hashtag: HJResolution69.

In 2003 the Alaska Board of Game began to aggressively apply controversial “intensive predator management” practices over a large portion of the state. These abhorrent practices continued in every game management unit with efforts to lengthen hunting/trapping seasons for wolves (as well as increasing bag limits) to opening seasons when pups were young and helpless; bears were snared and trapped-body parts sold. Private pilots, over a hundred, were licensed to shoot wolves from the air. The program eliminated the need for hunters to obtain or purchase hunting tags or permits for predators, thereby permitting the “incidental” taking of these animals; same day airborne hunting and trapping which allow taking the same day one flies in an aircraft; allowing easier and greater use of motor vehicles while hunting to increase the hunter’s advantage; expanding the allowable means and methods of hunting for predators, like baiting or feeding, thereby creating additional opportunities for taking; allowing the sale of raw hides and skulls thereby creating economic incentives for taking; and many others.

Clearly, existing mandates for the conservation of natural and biological integrity and environmental health on refuges in Alaska were disregarded, prompting USFWS to issue the AlaskaNationalWildlifeRefugesRule, whichformallyestablisheda goal ofbiodiversityasthe guiding principleoffederalmanagementofwildlife refuges. The rule made it quite clear it would have no impact on subsistence hunters.

The Alaska National Wildlife Refuges Rule follows the law and manages the refuges as Congress intended. SigningH.J.Resolution 69 into law would unleash cruel, egregious, aggressive, sustained slaughter purportedlyaimedat increasing ungulate herds, whilst defying the need for a balanced ecosystem and the predator-prey relationship. H.J. Resolution 69 would undue a rule that, in all actuality, helps maintain a balanced ecosystem necessary for the future of subsistence hunting. “The Service fully recognizes and considers that rural residents are dependent on refuge resources and manages for this use consistent with the conservation of species and habitats in their natural diversity.”

The states do not have a right to dictate what happens on our National Wildlife Refuges, and I ask that you veto H.J. Resolution 69.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this extremely urgent matter.

Regards,
Your name

The Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131) states that wilderness “is hereby recognized as an area which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition…freedom of a landscape from the human intent to permanently intervene, alter, control, or manipulate natural conditions or processes.”

TWEETS (All tweets are automated, just tap ” Tweet4Wolves” at the end of each message, be sure to close your twitter window prior to tweeting) :

This Press release was written by Dr. Wielgus as a private citizen and does not express the positions of Washington State University.

Four years ago the Washington State Legislature tasked and funded me to determine 1.) the extent of wolf livestock depredations in WA, 2.) possible contributing factors, and 3.) possible mitigating factors – to reduce livestock depredations in WA.

Here are the verifiable facts concerning wolf livestock depredations obtained from my WSU radio-telemetry data of wolves and livestock, date and time stamped video records of wolves and livestock, and public records from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife*.

Using intensive radio-telemetry of livestock overlapping wolf home ranges: among 11 different cooperating herds studied over 2 years – zero of 764 radio-tagged livestock were killed by wolves. Among this sample of cooperating ranchers, fewer than 1% of estimated livestock losses were due to wolf depredations.

Using extensive radio-monitoring of 5 wolf packs monitored over 3 years (15 wolf pack years) and examination of 444 wolf kill sites: 9 of 15 packs had zero wolf livestock kills at 444 kill sites and 3 of 15 packs had < 5% livestock kills. For the remaining 3 packs with more than 5% kills, one had 16% and another had 23% – and sheep comprised most of these kills. The Profanity Peak pack had 67% livestock kills. Among this sample of wolf packs, including the Profanity Peak outlier, fewer than 7% of wolf kills were livestock.

Re: the numerous livestock depredations by the profanity Peak Pack. Using radio-telemetry and date and time stamped video surveillance, livestock were documented to be concentrated in the immediate vicinity of the Profanity pack den and rendezvous site. Salt blocks were also observed within 200 meters of the den. Several days after livestock arrived at the den-site, wolves began depredating the livestock, and numerous livestock were eventually killed by wolves. After failure of subsequent non-lethal interventions to deter livestock depredations the wolf pack was lethally controlled.

Re; Preventative measures taken in the Profanity Peak Pack. The rancher involved did not sign and abide by the terms of a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Damage Prevention Agreement* prior to lethal control of wolves. (See Profanity Peak Post Action report, Appendix 1, Wolf-Livestock Conflict Prevention/Reduction Activities and Associated Expectations, “Avoiding Den and Rendezvous Sites” See paragraph 4, page 14 here. Using radio-telemetry and date and time stamped video surveillance, cattle remained in high use wolf core areas (den and rendezvous site) during the depredations and salt blocks remained in these areas until after lethal control of wolves began. Cattle remained in high use wolf core areas before, during and after wolf lethal control actions.

In summary, wolf livestock depredations were not widespread and chronic in wolf-occupied areas of Washington. Instead, wolf livestock depredations appear to be rare and acute, with multiple depredations occurring in particular situations, such as described for Profanity Peak.

These results were reviewed by WSU graduate committees, independent outside members of the committees, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Director of the School of Environment at WSU. Raw data and observations were shared with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. These results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals in summer 2017.

I recommend to WDFW, the WAG, and ranchers in WA to sign, and/or abide by the terms of the WDFW Cooperative Damage Prevention Agreements to reduce wolf livestock depredations. Failing that, I recommend that WDFW consider that future lethal control of wolves on public lands, for livestock depredations on public lands, be conducted only on behalf of ranchers that sign and/or abide by the terms of a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Damage Prevention Agreement – in order to provide further incentives for non-lethal preventative measures. These recommendations could prevent similar events as happened in fall 2016 and in previous years.

I wish to thank all the cooperating and non-cooperating ranchers in Washington, the Washington State Legislature, and my research partners at WDFW, USFS, USFWS, and Colville Confederated Tribes that made this research possible.

*Signatories to Damage Prevention agreements have access to den site location and are expected to avoid such areas if possible.
Agreements are tailored to individual producer situations, including availability of alternative grazing sites to avoid core wolf activity centers (pup-rearing den and rendezvous sites) and WDFW-radio-collared wolf monitoring information.

This is a continuation of our first page of tweets to Stop #HJResolution69. If you have not sent off the first set of tweets they can be located here. Between the two sheets, we have 352 tweets.

For ease of tweeting follow these instructions: Close your twitter window and open this post on your browser, do not tweet from the facebook app. Tap “Tweet4Wolves” at the end of each message and your tweet will be automatically sent. For those of you experiencing trouble with the automatic return to sheet after each tweet, please know that I have done everything possible on this website to correct this problem. This is a difficult task as I am experiencing no trouble sending tweets on my browser (chrome). I have isolated the tweet message which should make it easier for those of you reduced to ‘cut and paste’ tweets. Feel free to add images to the tweets except where noted. Adding images as a link removes 23 characters from the message, adding images when you post your tweet removes zero characters, so I will leave that to you. Help yourself to any images here or from the Facebook event. Thank you for participating.

For ease of tweeting followtheseinstructions: Close your twitter window (not account). Open this post on your browser. Tap “Tweet4Wolves” at the end of each message and your tweet will be automatically sent. Do not tweet from the facebook app!

Please cut and paste the following letter and email to your US. Senators (linked at the end of this post).

Dear Senator,

In 2003 the Alaska Board of Game began to aggressively apply controversial “intensive predator management” practices over a large portion of the state. These abhorrent practices continued in every game management unit with efforts to lengthen hunting/trapping seasons for wolves, as well as increasing bag limits, to opening seasons when pups were young and helpless. Young wolf pups were gassed in dens, bears snared and trapped — body parts sold. Private pilots, over a hundred, were licensed to shoot wolves from the air.

The war against the wolf was horrific and inhumane.

Clearly, existing mandates for the conservation of natural and biological diversity, biological integrity and environmental health on refuges in Alaska were disregarded, prompting USFWS to issue the Alaska National Wildlife Refuges Rule, which formally established a goal of biodiversity as the guiding principle of federal management of wildlife refuges. The rule made it quite clear it would have no impact on subsistence hunters.

TheAlaska National Wildlife Refuges Rule follows the law and manages the refuges as Congress intended. A vote in favor of H.J.Resolution 69 would unleash cruel, egregious, aggressive sustained slaughter purportedly aimed at increasing ungulate herds, whilst defying the need for a balanced ecosystem and the predator-prey relationship. A similar measure (S.J.Resolution 18) introduced in the Senate also seeks to erode federal management authority over Alaska Wildlife Refuges and should be set aside.

These are our public lands which should be managed as Congress intended, for all Americans, not as “game farms” for the benefit of the few.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this extremely urgent matter. For more information regarding Alaska’s Intensive Predator Management please see this informative attachment: The Case Against H.J.Resolution 69 http://wp.me/p6o9qd-14h

Sincerely,

Your name

All U.S. Senators, 115th Congress are listed below in alphabetical order by state. Find your Senator here and tap their last name to send an email:

House lawmakers, on Thursday, February 16th, passed a measure to repeal a recently implemented rule that banned abhorrent practices such as shooting/ trapping wolves while at dens with pups, killing hibernating bears and spotting Grizzlies from aircraft for kill upon landing. The rule aligns with a similar National Park Service rule, which was finalized in October, 2015, banning abhorrent practices such as “bear baiting” and the Game Boards liberal predator control “management”.

The legislation, authored by Representative Don Young, would undo the Alaska National Wildlife Refuges Rule, opening the door for the state to resume aggressive predator control tactics including shooting wolves from airplanes, spotting bears from aircraft for kill upon landing, and killing cubs and pups in their dens on more than 76 million acres of national wildlife refuge land inAlaska. A recently introduced companion measure(S.J.Resolution 18), sponsored by Senator Dan Sullivan, also seeks to erode federal management authority over Alaska Wildlife Refuges and should be set aside.

Undertherule,issued August 3rd, 2016, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, predator control is not allowed on Alaska’s 16 national wildlife refuges “unlessitisdeterminedtobenecessarytomeetrefugepurposes, isconsistentwithfederallawsandpolicyandisbasedonsoundscienceinresponsetoaconservationconcern.” The law also bans specific hunting methods on Alaska refuges, including killing bear cubs or adult females with cubs, baiting brown bears, taking bears using snares and traps, and aerial shooting of bears and wolves.

The rule “clarifies how existing mandates for the conservation of natural and biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health on refuges in Alaska relate to predator control; prohibits several particularly effective methods and means for take of predators”. The rule formally established a goal of biodiversity as the guiding principle of federal management of wildlife refuges. The rule also made it clear there would be no impact on subsistence hunters.

Inablogpostpublished the day of the final ruling in August, former FWS Director Dan Ashe said that in implementing Alaska’s Intensive Management Law, the AlaskaBoardofGame had “unleashed a withering attack on bears and wolves that is wholly at odds with America’s long tradition of ethical, sportsmanlike, fair-chase hunting.”

Under Title VIII (Subsistence Management And Use) of the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), Alaska Natives and other rural residents were granted hunting and fishing rights (when fish and game are not under outside threat) on National Preserves. The ANILCA did not, however, allow Alaska to manage its wildlife as it has been ~ which is not unlike a game farm, where wolves and bears are decimated to allow unchecked trophy hunting and commercial guiding, and led to the implementation of tighter restrictions by the National Park Service. Alaska is unique among the 50 states for allowing sport and subsistence hunting in the 17 million acres of national preserves added to the National Park System by the ANILCA. While Congress recognized the “important value of subsistence and (sadly) sport hunting”, it allowed both to take place only where consistent with the mandate to protect and conserve wildlife resources. State sport hunting regulations passed by the Alaska Board of Game apply on public lands, but only when those regulations do not conflict with federal mandates or National Park policies.

(In Alaska, the wildlife law known as the IntensiveManagementstatute is in conflict with federal laws governing national park lands and the management of wildlife on those lands. Preemption, the constitutional doctrine which holds that whenfederal law and state law conflict, federal law must be followed, and state law must yield, requires the State of Alaska to refrain from implementing the Intensive Management statute on national park lands because of the conflict with federal laws.)

The Board, however, noticeably became increasingly aggressive in its efforts to implement predator control on federal public lands through liberalization of sport hunting and trapping regulations. For example in 1994, the Alaska Legislature passed the Intensive Management Statute with which the explicit goal was to maintain, restore, or increase the abundance of big game populations for human consumptive use.

The following 2 maps illustrate the enormous expansion of state designated predator control areas (PCA) from 2001 to 2014. The maps also show that the boundaries of most national preserves had been encroached upon and many had become virtually surrounded by Predator Control Areas in just 14 years. Note the vast increase of “wolf control” areas (in yellow).

The Board has also practiced intensive management by liberalizing sport hunting regulations, including:

•Increasing bag limits from five per season up to 20 per season or 10 per day (as high as 20 a day for wolves in some areas of the state), and liberalizing hunting seasons for predators to increase their “harvest”.

•Eliminating the need for hunters to obtain or purchase hunting tags or permits for predators.

•Permitting the incidental taking of predators.

•Authorizing same-day airborne hunting and trapping, which allows hunters to take predators the same day they’ve been flying.

•Allowing the use of bait to lure predators.

•And, of course, the aerial gunning of wolves.

Note that in 2011, the Board issued an emergency order to extend wolf hunting and trapping seasons in GMUs 9 and 10 to increase caribou numbers and as a way of getting around the U.S. Fish & Wildlife’s prohibition on aerial wolf control programs on Unimak Island.

Furthermore, the board has repeatedly refused to reduce the impact of its programs on NationalPreserves. For example, in the spring of 2014, the radio-collared Lost Creek wolf pack left the borders of the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve and was eliminated through aerial shooting by state agents implementing one of the Board’s intensive management plans. The Park Service had been studying the Lost Creek pack for seven years as part of a roughly 20-year study of wolves in the Yukon Charley National Preserve; The State predator control efforts killed 36 wolves in the area in a single year, reducing the preserve’s population by over half.

Another example is the Board’s 2010 elimination of the 122 square-mile buffer adjacent to DenaliNationalPark that protected wolves crossing its boundaries from hunting and trapping~Two years later, the wolf populations in the Park were the lowest in decades.

The USFWS acted admirably to prevent application of state regulations which are incompatible with management objectives for the nearly 77 million acres of wildlife refuges across the state.

The National Park Service has also been at odds with the State which led to the implementation of tighter restrictions on sport hunting (the closure regulations became effective Nov. 23 2015, and new hunting regulations effective January 1, 2016. More information regarding the NPS regulations can be found here.

When H.J. Resolution69 is brought to the floor for a vote, I ask that you please stand by our wildlife and Public Lands, vote against this disgraceful and appalling attempt to reinstate animalcruelty on our wildlife refuges. The companion measure introduced in the Senate is equally shameful in its attempt to undo The Alaska National Wildlife Refuges Rule and should be voted down; the states do not have a right to dictate what happens on our National Wildlife Refuges.

Related content:

Fish and Wildlife Service Wise to Oppose Alaska’s War on Wolves Amustread op-ed by Vic Van Ballenberghe who is a wildlife biologist and a former member of the Alaska Board of Game.